[holyfield5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, they miss the point. I am not equating luck with skill. Ivy is a very skilled poker player. I am just saying his luck is probably on the better end as well. It makes for a great combination.

And you are wrong when you say EVERYONE. If it were possible to have an infinite amount of time and an infinite sample size. You would eventually find someone who in a billion throws actually threw all heads or all tales.

Obviously we don't have infinite time or an infinte sample size, so we will probably never see something that drastic. But we will see deviations that can make a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive them Craig, they don't understand. Those that bring up this point are accused of trying to rationalize why others have been more successful at poker. However, it's just stating truth. It's a huge longshot that Phil Ivey hasn't been on the + side of the luck curve, even if he's the best player to ever walk the face of the earth.

As a side note, if we're betting $1 on heads and tails on tosses of a fair coin, there's a 10% chance one of us is up over $52k after a billion tosses. If the charts of that match were published, people would say that person is clearly the better coin tosser, as luck evens out in the end, and there's no way a person could be up 52k after a BILLION tosses, betting only $1 a toss.

[/ QUOTE ]

no you still dont get it, if he is up 52k after a billion tosses then he hit 50.0003% his side of the coin......the more tosses the closer that number will be to exactly fifty....period......if he tossed it 10 billion times and was up 300k the percentage is still dead on 50 pretty much(and even though more money closer still to 50%). having 52k flips on your side after a billion flips is not much, that miniscule amount of favorable luck isnt making someone a top pro who doesnt have the skill.